A kind rebuttal

[VincePV.exe]

For the newspaper at our school (which sucks by the way), a young man decided to attempt to critique Watchmen. Which he did very poorly.
Here is a scan of the article.

Here is my kind rebuttal.

I would like to first start out by saying that I respect your opinion of Watchmen. It is a valuable right for one to be able to have their opinion. You did not like this movie and I respect that.

However, you do not have the right to criticize that which you do not understand. If you claim that you are a “huge fan of the Watchmen graphic novel” you clearly would understand the story. This is not the case. The plot points you have incorrectly addressed are as followed
-“The plot is about a group of current and retired superheroes.” First, they are not superheroes (Except for Doctor Manhattan, who is not a self-proclaimed superhero) they are vigilantes. Second, they are all retired (with the exception of Rorschach who is a special case). After the Keene Act was passed, these heroes all hung up their costumes and took a new path in life. Rorschach on the other hand is psychotic and feels he must take the law into his own hands because it is his responsibility.
-“…making crime fighting superheroes obsolete.” Again, they are vigilantes. They are not obsolete either. They are ILLEGAL. They are illegal because after Doctor Manhattan was used as a weapon in Vietnam people felt threatened and scared by the prospect of a super powered being and vigilantes. Thus the Keene Act was passed.
-“…former heroes try to redefine themselves and save the world.” Okay… this proves that you did not understand (or read for that matter) this comic book because these heroes do not try to redefine themselves. They had to give up crime fighting and they have been lost ever since. Technically, they cannot redefine themselves because heroism is all that they know (except Ozymandias who’s redefinition happened when he retired). As for saving the world, you have shown that you probably have not read this comic. After the Comedian’s death, Rorschach rounds up his old crime fighting contacts to solve the MYSTERY (this is a MYSTERY novel, not a save the world novel and that is precisely why you don’t understand it) surrounding the Comedian’s death. As the plot unravels Rorschach and company stumble upon a plot driven by Ozymandias. Ozymandias’ plot is to bring world peace at a drastic cost. Rorschach, Nite Owl II, Silk Spectre II and Doctor Manhattan did not save anything.

Plot aside; the actors in this move all gave heartfelt, emotional performances (did you even watch Rorschach’s last scene or were you suffering from narcolepsy?). They were as complex as the source material allowed them to be. If there wasn’t as much “depth” in these characters as you wanted I suggest you read their back-story. Oh wait! There is only as much back-story as the graphic novel represents. Every character accurately portrayed their character as the character was in the comic (did your Heath Ledger do that?).

“What happens when costumed heroes start handling the grittier aspect of crime?” This is not even a part of the main story. The only time this relates is when Rorschach kills his first criminal. Aside from that this is not even a theme. The correct theme that this story follows is “drastic times call for drastic measures”. Ozymandias proved this theme by preventing nuclear war and brining peace.

This comic is at least 80% perfect panel and line transition to the big screen. Unless you have a separate definition for “staying true to the comic”, I respectfully declare shenanigans. You sir, are wrong again!
Finally, I cannot believe that you would compare this to the Dark Knight not once, but three times. They are two completely different movies. You need to stop putting the Dark Knight on a throne that which it does not belong. The Dark Knight did not change lives. However, that is a completely different rant of mine.

My goal in writing this is to tell you that in order to write a well-written review, you must understand the source material. I can tell the only reason you read this comic in the first place is because you saw a preview for it during the Dark Knight. Since you did not read this thoroughly enough to understand the plot, you cannot claim yourself to be a “huge fan of the Watchmen graphic novel”.



Sincerely,

Vincent Vullo

P.S. Please proofread your work. According to a Mr. Merriam-Webster fanboy is one word. Your typos (at least eight) make your review difficult to follow. Also, if you are “only allowed certain amount of space” why waste such precious space on corny, immature jokes.

Comments?

 

[The Guard]

Don't forget to point out that if Rorschach's voice is a whisper, not a growl, and that if it is an imitation of Bales, that it is in fact better than Bale, who cannot hold his voice, and who needed computer modulation to make it decent in THE DARK KNIGHT.

 

[블라스]

That Caleb is a jackass.

 

[Katsuro]

Nitpicking on the use of the term "superheroes" is a bit silly. I wouldn't say he didn't understand the book just cuz he used that term. They are superheroes in the traditional sense of the word, powers or not. Afterall, Batman's widely recognized as a superhero, isn't he?

But yeah, lame review. I say that mostly because he talked negativley of Jackie Earl Haley's performance, which was brilliant.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

That Caleb is a jackass.

why the heck did the guy have to be named caleb...sheesh

 

[bullets]

the guy doesn't get it and people who haven't read the graphic novel will be turned away by this review. caleb is a virus.

 

[Katsuro]

the guy doesn't get it and people who haven't read the graphic novel will be turned away by this review. caleb is a virus.

eh, it's one tiny school newspaper. You know what reviewer has more readership? Roger Ebert, and he liked it.

 

[JaD]

I'm surprised you didn't even black out his last name. At least out of courtesy and respect.

*checks phone listings of 'W' in Plano, Texas*

*picks up phone*

 

[ClarkLuther55]

Some of the arguments in this rebuttal of yours are pointless. There's no reason to nitpick between "vigilante" and "superhero;" Batman is considered a mainstream, iconic example of a superhero and he has no powers either. The term "superhero" is even used in both the graphic novel and the movie.

It's also pointless to nitpick whether they're retired or not, when he said "current to retired." Rorschach was active. Dr. Manhattan was active and considered the cornerstone of American power until the cancer plot drove him from the Earth. The Comedian was also active until a week before his death (he found Ozy's island while coming back from a mission). That's half of the six primary superhero characters in the story.

One of the ideas in the actual graphic novel is that the kind of superheroics commonly practiced by comic book heroes (i.e. "beat up crooks") is somewhat useless and doesn't actually address the root causes of society's problems, or the big picture of nuclear armageddon. Even "Superman" himself Dr. Manhattan was making things worse by escalating the nuclear arms race. Watchmen was a harsh deconstruction/rebuttal of the superhero concept. I've read that it was supposed to be anti-Reagan, telling people not to blindly trust "hero" figures to do everything for them.

ANOTHER nitpick was that "save the world" crap. The review obviously meant that they TRY to save the world, which again is true from the actual graphic novel. Rorschach makes clear his belief that the superhero-killer is tied to a plot to trigger nuclear war, and Dan believes him. Dan pulls Laurie in on his plans to help Rorschach stop the presumed evil plot, and Laurie literally convinces Manhattan to save the world.

It's like you're trying to make this guy look wrong. He didn't like the movie, big whoop.

This guy's negative review of the movie doesn't really bring up many points of its own either, being based on his subjective opinion that the acting was bad. I disagree with him on Rorschach, because I and nearly everyone else think that Jackie stole the show. However, because the review didn't really say much, there's not much to actually refute. Just some guy's opinion.

 

[S.D. Plissken]

Anyone's first thought should be: It's a high school newspaper. You could be mature and let it go because:

It's not that important.

And anyways you could have at least made your scan big enough to read without a magnifying glass.

 

[SuperFerret]

Comments?

Don't mind if I do.

For the newspaper at our school (which sucks by the way), a young man decided to attempt to critique Watchmen. Which he did very poorly.
Here is a scan of the article.

Here is my kind rebuttal.

I would like to first start out by saying that I respect your opinion of Watchmen. It is a valuable right for one to be able to have their opinion. You did not like this movie and I respect that.

Two comments here: Firstly, all school newspapers suck, as all the writers are students who are likely learning how to do this professionally, but that's what they're there for. Second, your rebuttal comes off as neither kind nor respectful, rather it comes off as condescending.

However, you do not have the right to criticize that which you do not understand. If you claim that you are a “huge fan of the Watchmen graphic novel” you clearly would understand the story. This is not the case. The plot points you have incorrectly addressed are as followed
-“The plot is about a group of current and retired superheroes.” First, they are not superheroes (Except for Doctor Manhattan, who is not a self-proclaimed superhero) they are vigilantes. Second, they are all retired (with the exception of Rorschach who is a special case). After the Keene Act was passed, these heroes all hung up their costumes and took a new path in life. Rorschach on the other hand is psychotic and feels he must take the law into his own hands because it is his responsibility.
-“…making crime fighting superheroes obsolete.” Again, they are vigilantes. They are not obsolete either. They are ILLEGAL. They are illegal because after Doctor Manhattan was used as a weapon in Vietnam people felt threatened and scared by the prospect of a super powered being and vigilantes. Thus the Keene Act was passed.

I could reiterate what had been said by many before me about arguing the semantics about "superheroes" and "vigilantes", but I won't. I will however state this: anybody, anywhere, at anytime, has the right to have and express their opinion on something, regardless of how much they understand said thing. Mr. Wossen actually displays a valid, however simplified, summation of the graphic novel, as what he says is supported by the text.

-“…former heroes try to redefine themselves and save the world.” Okay… this proves that you did not understand (or read for that matter) this comic book because these heroes do not try to redefine themselves. They had to give up crime fighting and they have been lost ever since. Technically, they cannot redefine themselves because heroism is all that they know (except Ozymandias who’s redefinition happened when he retired). As for saving the world, you have shown that you probably have not read this comic. After the Comedian’s death, Rorschach rounds up his old crime fighting contacts to solve the MYSTERY (this is a MYSTERY novel, not a save the world novel and that is precisely why you don’t understand it) surrounding the Comedian’s death. As the plot unravels Rorschach and company stumble upon a plot driven by Ozymandias. Ozymandias’ plot is to bring world peace at a drastic cost. Rorschach, Nite Owl II, Silk Spectre II and Doctor Manhattan did not save anything.

Ozymandias, as you've said, did redefine himself to meet the changing times. Furthermore, he acts as if he had not retired from being a hero, as he acted in what he perceived as the best interests of the world even though he was "retired". He just acted as "Adrian Veidt" as opposed to "Ozymandias".

Rorschach too, redefined himself as crime became darker and tougher to fight. Upon realizing the futility in certain aspects of being a vigilante, such as when he was too late to save the little girl, he changed. He redefined himself. No longer was he Walter Kovacs dressed as Rorschach, but he was the Rorschach we know from the "present day" in the story.

Another character who redefined himself, however slightly, was the Comedian. Starting out with the rest of the original vigilantes, Blake was not very similar to the other characters. His attempt at raping Sally Jupiter proves that, so he's clearly no angel. However, as time goes on, he changes to match the time. That's what he did, as the Comedian, he constantly parodied the darker side of society, and as society got ever darker, so did Blake.

As for the type of novel it is, what genre it falls into and such; that has a multifaceted answer. To label it as merely a mystery is not incorporating the full text. Yes, it is a murder mystery. It is also an alternate history lesson, a look at a hypothetical world in which superheroes exist and how their prescence would possibly affect history. It is a character study of multiple characters, who while being comic book superheroes, are also three-dimensional personalities with vastly differing goals, ambitions and histories. Finally, yes, it is a "let's save the world" story, just not the typical one. Ozymandias was indeed trying to save the world, and the other characters were each doing the same, whether or not they agreed with his plans.

Plot aside; the actors in this move all gave heartfelt, emotional performances (did you even watch Rorschach’s last scene or were you suffering from narcolepsy?). They were as complex as the source material allowed them to be. If there wasn’t as much “depth” in these characters as you wanted I suggest you read their back-story. Oh wait! There is only as much back-story as the graphic novel represents. Every character accurately portrayed their character as the character was in the comic (did your Heath Ledger do that?).

Your disdain for Mr. Wossen shows most here, as is your apparent dislike for the Dark Knight, but that, all in all does not matter here. Yes, I agree with you that all of the actors delivered heartfelt and compelling performances, but that judgement is in the eye of the beholder. There are many threads discussing how "disappointing" the performance of Ms. Akerman was, and many people here who support that. That is their right, and it is Mr. Wossen's right, as it is our right to disagree.

“What happens when costumed heroes start handling the grittier aspect of crime?” This is not even a part of the main story. The only time this relates is when Rorschach kills his first criminal. Aside from that this is not even a theme. The correct theme that this story follows is “drastic times call for drastic measures”. Ozymandias proved this theme by preventing nuclear war and brining peace.

I will respond to this first by stating that there is NO wrong themes in literature, as long as the theme is backed up by the text, and the theme of “What happens when costumed heroes start handling the grittier aspect of crime?” is a valid theme. In both the comic and the film, Rorschach brutally murders a man when presented with a heinous crime. He also goes on to kill another man who had a masochistic addiction to being beat up, although this is shown via an anecdote and not "on screen".

How does the theme put forward by Mr. Wossen differ from your proposed theme of "drastic times call for drastic measures”? It differs only in the details. Would not the grittier aspects of crime in general make for drastic times? Would not dealing with those aspects mean taking drastic measures? Would not the posturing of world powers that bring the inevitability of nuclear annihilation be considered "gritty crimes" albeit on a greatly larger scale? I believe that each of those questions show how your "correct" theme is only superficially different from Mr. Wossens.

This comic is at least 80% perfect panel and line transition to the big screen. Unless you have a separate definition for “staying true to the comic”, I respectfully declare shenanigans. You sir, are wrong again!
Finally, I cannot believe that you would compare this to the Dark Knight not once, but three times. They are two completely different movies. You need to stop putting the Dark Knight on a throne that which it does not belong. The Dark Knight did not change lives. However, that is a completely different rant of mine.

Yes, Watchmen was an incredibly accurate adaption from page to screen. This may be the only instance thus far that Mr. Wossen is "wrong", however, as before, there are many threads and posters disputing this, so it is once again an opinion, and thus valid no matter how you look at it.

Watchmen and the Dark Knight were inevitably going to be compared, as they both came out in theaters within a year of each other, both deal with incredibly serious storylines dealing with comic book superheroes, and both draw the same demographic of fans. No, the Dark Knight is not the end-all, be-all of comic book movies, but neither is Watchmen. Each has their own good points and bad points, yet it's not reasonable to think that they cannot and should not be compared.

My goal in writing this is to tell you that in order to write a well-written review, you must understand the source material. I can tell the only reason you read this comic in the first place is because you saw a preview for it during the Dark Knight. Since you did not read this thoroughly enough to understand the plot, you cannot claim yourself to be a “huge fan of the Watchmen graphic novel”.

My goal is writing this is to speak out against fans of Watchmen who, like yourself, behave in a manner that portrays you as an intellectual elitist. The idea that if someone's opinion of this seminal masterpiece differs from yours means that they did not understand it, as if they were somehow mentally lower than you, is not only incredibly arrogant but incorrect. Arguments rage on whether or not comic books are an art form, and Watchmen is a prime example of the "Yes, they are" argument, and if it is true and Watchmen is indeed a work of art, then it's appeal is by definition entirely subjective and based on the views of the reader, which are entirely valid if they are supported by the text.

Mr. Wossen is a critic, and his opinions are his own, but they have a basis in the text of Watchmen and are thus entirely valid, no matter how much I disagree with him.

 

[VincePV.exe]

Hey thanks a lot guys! I really appreciate it!

 

[VincePV.exe]

Especially you SuperFerret. The fact that you would take the time to tear me apart means a lot. Again, I really appreciate it.

 

[DACrowe]

Eh, I respect his opinion that the movie is "boring," because it is honestly uneven and is not very accessible if you have not read the book or pay immense attention. While that is a flaw, I also think that is a flaw many great (and much better) movies have, but it is a worthy criticism. It is too bad he doesn't delve into that. Instead he falls on the same-old same-old (can I assume this is a high school paper?) about the naked penis, and def. proves his fanboy title by assuming The Dark Knight is the end-all, be-all of superhero cinema and that any comic book based film in the conceivable future that attempts to be dark or contemplative will be rendered pointless and useless by default, because TDK is just soooooo perfect. And this point is driven home by his critique on Haley's performance. I do consider Bale one of the great actors of this generation and a terrific Batman, but i didn't notice anyone laugh when they first heard Haley's Rorschach speak, unlike every theater screening I was at for BB and TDK.

I also think he shows a lack of comprehension for the book, as the point isn't that superheroes are obsolete, but they are dangerous and unworthy of the ability to be our guardians. I don't care if he didn't recollect the details, but the point is they have a negative effect on world events, like, as with Alan Moore's opinion, all self-proclaimed leaders and protectors do. It isn't because there "are too many rapists," someone who loves TDK so much with its heavy handed themes of escalation should not miss that.

I think he had a good point but he chose not to pursue it for window-dressing arguments.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Don't forget to point out that if Rorschach's voice is a whisper, not a growl, and that if it is an imitation of Bales, that it is in fact better than Bale, who cannot hold his voice, and who needed computer modulation to make it decent in THE DARK KNIGHT.

Is this true TG?

 

[VincePV.exe]

And Superferret as much as I appreciate your criticism, you sounded more condescending than I did. It seems hypocritical to me that you would speak out about someone being condescending, when you condescend to tell them that.

Also, it's not that I find if someone has a different opinion they are mentally lower than me. I am the only person at my school who reads comics hardcore (or at least admits it) so, anybody providing negative enthusiasm towards anything comic related upsets me. I am sure you would feel the same way.

 

[arman200]

For the newspaper at our school (which sucks by the way), a young man decided to attempt to critique Watchmen. Which he did very poorly.
Here is a scan of the article.

Here is my kind rebuttal.

I would like to first start out by saying that I respect your opinion of Watchmen. It is a valuable right for one to be able to have their opinion. You did not like this movie and I respect that.

However, you do not have the right to criticize that which you do not understand. If you claim that you are a “huge fan of the Watchmen graphic novel” you clearly would understand the story. This is not the case. The plot points you have incorrectly addressed are as followed
-“The plot is about a group of current and retired superheroes.” First, they are not superheroes (Except for Doctor Manhattan, who is not a self-proclaimed superhero) they are vigilantes. Second, they are all retired (with the exception of Rorschach who is a special case). After the Keene Act was passed, these heroes all hung up their costumes and took a new path in life. Rorschach on the other hand is psychotic and feels he must take the law into his own hands because it is his responsibility.
-“…making crime fighting superheroes obsolete.” Again, they are vigilantes. They are not obsolete either. They are ILLEGAL. They are illegal because after Doctor Manhattan was used as a weapon in Vietnam people felt threatened and scared by the prospect of a super powered being and vigilantes. Thus the Keene Act was passed.
-“…former heroes try to redefine themselves and save the world.” Okay… this proves that you did not understand (or read for that matter) this comic book because these heroes do not try to redefine themselves. They had to give up crime fighting and they have been lost ever since. Technically, they cannot redefine themselves because heroism is all that they know (except Ozymandias who’s redefinition happened when he retired). As for saving the world, you have shown that you probably have not read this comic. After the Comedian’s death, Rorschach rounds up his old crime fighting contacts to solve the MYSTERY (this is a MYSTERY novel, not a save the world novel and that is precisely why you don’t understand it) surrounding the Comedian’s death. As the plot unravels Rorschach and company stumble upon a plot driven by Ozymandias. Ozymandias’ plot is to bring world peace at a drastic cost. Rorschach, Nite Owl II, Silk Spectre II and Doctor Manhattan did not save anything.

Plot aside; the actors in this move all gave heartfelt, emotional performances (did you even watch Rorschach’s last scene or were you suffering from narcolepsy?). They were as complex as the source material allowed them to be. If there wasn’t as much “depth” in these characters as you wanted I suggest you read their back-story. Oh wait! There is only as much back-story as the graphic novel represents. Every character accurately portrayed their character as the character was in the comic (did your Heath Ledger do that?).

“What happens when costumed heroes start handling the grittier aspect of crime?” This is not even a part of the main story. The only time this relates is when Rorschach kills his first criminal. Aside from that this is not even a theme. The correct theme that this story follows is “drastic times call for drastic measures”. Ozymandias proved this theme by preventing nuclear war and brining peace.

This comic is at least 80% perfect panel and line transition to the big screen. Unless you have a separate definition for “staying true to the comic”, I respectfully declare shenanigans. You sir, are wrong again!
Finally, I cannot believe that you would compare this to the Dark Knight not once, but three times. They are two completely different movies. You need to stop putting the Dark Knight on a throne that which it does not belong. The Dark Knight did not change lives. However, that is a completely different rant of mine.

My goal in writing this is to tell you that in order to write a well-written review, you must understand the source material. I can tell the only reason you read this comic in the first place is because you saw a preview for it during the Dark Knight. Since you did not read this thoroughly enough to understand the plot, you cannot claim yourself to be a “huge fan of the Watchmen graphic novel”.



Sincerely,

Vincent Vullo

P.S. Please proofread your work. According to a Mr. Merriam-Webster fanboy is one word. Your typos (at least eight) make your review difficult to follow. Also, if you are “only allowed certain amount of space” why waste such precious space on corny, immature jokes.

Comments?

You did say that to him or posted this as another article in the newspaper, right? Because I don't think you're going to get through to him on here.t:

 

[boydston_14]

I'm going to go ahead and critique his critique not for what's written, but how it's placed on the page, and say that there's too much blank space on his page and it annoys the crap out of me. Oh and in case you're wondering I'm the entertainment editor on my school's newspaper staff, so I've begun to realize this stuff more and more as time goes on. Also I too wrote a review of Watchmen, except I believe mine was actually good.

 

[VincePV.exe]

Of course I sent it to him! His reply was that off "but but but I'm published in a newspaper so that makes everything okay!" except y'know...sophisticated.
I didn't feel like responding because I'm pretty sure arguing about Watchmen has joined Politics and Religion on the list of things not to argue about

 

[JerseyJoker]

Just reading this thread, i highly doubt that was his actual rebuttal to your "kind" review. Since from reading both sides, there was no place he was in the wrong for him review, while you just come off as a fanboy who can't take it that something he likes isn't liked by all.